W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > October 2001

Re: Issue 4 Proposed Resolution (was: why no doc type declarationand PIs in SOAP)

From: Francis Norton <francis@redrice.com>
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 16:25:09 +0100
Message-ID: <3BB9DC55.70AE5244@redrice.com>
To: Bob Hutchison <hutch@xampl.com>
CC: Andrew Layman <andrewl@microsoft.com>, xml dist <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Resounding silence so far...

Perhaps we can phrase it a bit more constructively.

Just as the original XML spec had in its background the use case of the
DPH (desperate perl hacker) who has to hack together an XML parser on an
otherwise parserless platform, could we list some of the use cases for
XML Protocol?

I'd like to contribute one I'm familiar with -

[1]	Desperate 4GL hacker with access to an XML parser and an HTTP
library. The D4H is praying that SOAP 1.2 won't require him to throw out
and re-implement his own XML parser.

Any other offers?


Bob Hutchison wrote:
> You'd think I'd be careful with the word 'it' since it's what got me
> involved here in the first place :-)
> I understand your paragraph, and I'm wondering similar things to what you
> wrote. What I don't understand is why this decision was made. Perhaps
> someone can explain why the a SOAP receiver isn't using some kind of
> pre-parsed information.
> On 01/10/01 8:26 PM, "Bob Hutchison" <hutch@xampl.com> wrote:
> > I'll let others respond to your last paragraph, because I don't understand
> > it. The only comment I'll make now is that, in my opinion, this is a much
> > more significant issue than 'issue 4'.
Received on Tuesday, 2 October 2001 11:26:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:16 UTC